Click to expand
Rank #2421 on ContentLevel 241 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to widar Block widar Invite widar to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||2/16/2010|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#1323|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1447|
|Content Thumbs:||7403 total, 8322 , 919|
|Comment Thumbs:||5213 total, 6225 , 1012|
|Content Level Progress:|| 88% (88/100) |
Level 166 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 167 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
|Comment Level Progress:|| 61% (61/100) |
Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 242 Comments: Doinitrite
|Times Content Favorited:||545 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1387|
- Views: 24517Maximum Friendzone
1169 94 Total: +1075
- Views: 39683*_____*
949 74 Total: +875
- Views: 18145Oooohhhh
360 25 Total: +335
- Views: 14146Guy Fieri
337 27 Total: +310
- Views: 16573Ukraine comp part 3
333 40 Total: +293
- Views: 15872Spiders
305 33 Total: +272
- Views: 1901Enormous Penis Song
17 7 Total: +10
- Views: 1644Our Hero
15 6 Total: +9
- Views: 1937Cool Guy has Chill Day
12 5 Total: +7
- Views: 1013Ukraine comp part 13
8 4 Total: +4
- Views: 2780Sargon about Bananaman
3 5 Total: -2
latest user's comments
|#8 - 1914 Europe is prettiest Europe. Seriously, look at h… [+] (1 new reply)||07/27/2015 on Beware your wishes||+1|
#9 - justaredshirt (07/27/2015) [-]
Yes, and the sad thing is if a Neutral Country would have calmed down Austria-Hungary and Serbia (even though Austria had a right to be pissed as their Crown Prince was assassinated), they wouldn't have declared war, the other countries wouldn't have been dragged into war, World War I would not have happened, the German Empire wouldn't have fallen, the Nazis wouldn't have risen to power, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened, World War II wouldn't have happened....
Yeah, 1914 Europe is Best Europe!
|#166 - Yep, T-72 of the Syrian army||07/27/2015 on Messin' With Sasquatch||0|
|#132 - While true, the T-72s used by the Iraqi army were outdated by …||07/27/2015 on Messin' With Sasquatch||+3|
|#130 - Kinda simliar, except the RPG missed. I distinctly rem… [+] (2 new replies)||07/27/2015 on Messin' With Sasquatch||0|
|#215 - Boobs are inherently sexual. A man's chest not really. And yes…||07/24/2015 on Equality||+1|
|#37 - Shouldn't be allowed to do that. The hippocratic oath prohibit…||07/23/2015 on So apparently transdisabled...||+3|
|#36 - Okay, I'm through with this **** . There comes a point w…||07/23/2015 on So apparently transdisabled...||0|
|#66 - Never seen or made pizza dough with milk or eggs. Is it an Ame… [+] (2 new replies)||07/22/2015 on Vegans||0|
|#54 - As a German whose grandfathers fought on the eastern front - s… [+] (23 new replies)||07/22/2015 on Shiet komrad||+22|
#88 - bobsagget (07/22/2015) [-]
it doesn't make you a genius to send wave after wave of your own men to slaughter, the russians did do poorly, they over extended and marched troops further than their supply trains could go, they were massacred at every battle they fought until they eventually got slogged down in stalingrad, if the allies hadn't come and restarted the fight in france and the western front, russia would have fallen by summer of the following year. you can argue that america joined the fight when it was already over, but i disagree, britain alone could not have retaken france, there were no other allied nations in the pacific theater of war, and i posit that if america had entered the fight before paris fell then hitler would never have made it as far as he did in russia, but can't change history.
#91 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
It wasn't the allies starting the war on the second front, it was the fact that the US and Britain were sending a royal assload of resources to keep the Russian war machine going.
There's a reason the US was nicknamed the "Arsenal of Democracy". The actual military contribution in France was minimal compared to the war in Eastern Europe, but the support role the US played as far as production went sealed the deal for the Allies.
The fact that you say there were no other allied nations in the pacific theatre tells me you need to brush up on your history. China fought long and fucking hard against the Japs, Australia's role was present but somewhat minimal, and Russia was going to enter the war in the pacific before Truman dropped the bombs.
Also, Operation Uranus is a good example of extremely good Russian strategy. Look it up.
This isn't to say Russia's strategy was perfect, but you have a very limited knowledge of World War II from the looks of it.
#96 - bobsagget (07/22/2015) [-]
china fought the japanese, IN CHINA, they didn't go island hopping to reclaim what the japanese stole. The fact that you say the allied contribution in france was minimal is entirely laughable, france went from being owned by nazi's to not being owned by nazi's and it wasn't british or french troops that did it either, in fact america was better placed to take berlin but the commanders chose to let russia enter the capital first to SAVE FACE, and take back some dignity for having lost millions more lives than any other nation. Russia had the largest standing army, and did the least amount with it. the germans lost at stalingrad because they weren't prepared to fight in the russian winter, hitler expected the war would be over much quicker than that, his over-confidence is what lost the russian front for him, not the tactics of the russian generals. You want to see a good example of tactics? how about the pincer movement attack that the germans used to annihilate the russian vanguard in 3 separate battles. the russians walked in to traps all the fucking time, it wasn't even fair. look up the von schlieffen plan. australia provided logistic support, they didn't fight the enemy in the pacific. don't get it twisted, america could have successfully invaded japan, we just knew how many lives it would cost and in the long run the atomic bombs saved millions of lives. the US had to power itself out of economic ruin when the war started heating up, the war is what kickstarted the economy in america and allowed us to actually do something about it. With the exception of the royal air force, none of the allies were prepared to take on the axis powers. As I said, even russia would have fallen if hitler had given jackets to his troops.
#111 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
Again, you have what seems to be a middle school education of World War II history. The US contribution to the war was huge, but it was far more important on the production side than on the military side. They saved Russia by sending them desperately needed supplies, and although Stalin had asked for the war on the second front to be opened up in France the US and UK started in Italy first. This didn't relieve the Russian troops as Stalin had asked for, and by the time the US, UK, and Canada landed in Normandy the tide of the war had already changed in the Eastern Front.
The United States could have easily invaded Japan, yes. But Russia had asked for three months after V-Day EU to recover before assisting the US in Japan. The United States could have easily waited for Russia to assist them in the invasion and would have shared victory while letting the Russians take the vast majority of the losses. Truman, not being an idiot, could see from how things were turning out in Berlin that giving Russia entry to Japan and they're captured territories would be a very bad idea.
It's true that Operation Barbarossa relied on early victory which was not granted to the Germans, but Russia held Stalingrad. Don't take that away from the millions who died by saying it was only the winter, it was the fact that Stalin said that no Russian troops in Stalingrad were to cross the Volga to retreat, and they did.
If you had read up on your history, you'd have known that the early stages of the war in Russia saw the highest amount of military success for the Germans largely because Stalin, being a delusional dictator, didn't believe Hitler had actually invaded Russia.
As far as the blood price of World War II goes, the Russians paid the most of it. They killed the most Germans, lost far more men, and contributed more to the war in Europe than any other country did. This isn't to marginalize what the US did in the Pacific or the fact that the UK held in the Battle of Britain, but just addressing the fact that the war in Europe was mostly won by Russia.
The reason no sane allied country has this narrative in their schoolbooks and why these opinions are only being now put in the more revisionist programs is because World War II lead almost directly into the Cold War, and there was no way in hell our history books were going to praise anything the Ruskies did.
If you respond, please break your message up into smaller paragraphs. I had a hard time reading it and don't want to come across as an asshole.
On the note of China fighting the war in China, I'd note that it's a lot easier to fight a war outside your borders when the enemy isn't, you know, invading you. US didn't have to deal with land battles inside of their own country.
#119 - bobsagget (07/22/2015) [-]
3 months is too long to wait in a war, we had nothing left to do but invade the mainland, russia could have helped i suppose but it wasn't necessary. we fought that fight.
Yes, you're right, before america entered in hostilities we provided aid and assistance, russia didn't even have mechanized armor to compete with the germans, they had guns though, and big ones. America sent about 600,000 flatbed armored troop transports, and the russians strapped their guns to them.
The russians held stalingrad but at what cost? The russians were so primed on not losing stalins namesake city that they threw away millions of lives, over 1 city that ended up a pile of rubble all said and done. in other words, it was a useless battle. the germans weren't going to advance in the winter, they didn't have the equipment to fight a winter war. Discredit that all you want but a frozen gun shoots no bullets and frost bitten fingers pull no triggers. I didn't say it was only winter that stopped the germans, only that the russians wouldn't have stopped them otherwise.
The means don't change the ends, whether stalin knew it or not, the germans advanced deep into russian held lands with little slowing down. I'd consider that a poor reaction on the russian end. not a credit to them.
I don't agree that the war in europe was won mostly by the russians, i think thats far from the truth, the war in RUSSIA was KINDA won by the russians. but without american and british aid, they would have fallen. and as far as your side note of china, japan was largely outnumbered by the chinese, with no close allies to provide assistance, and they continued to fight the war in china until they were defeated by the americans THE WHOLE TIME THEY WERE BEING INVADED. So it stands for itself that it can be done.
#125 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
As far as the Pacific front goes, it's true that Truman was losing more than enough soldiers on a daily basis to justify dropping the bombs. 3 months is; however, not too long to wait. The fact that Stalin was guaranteed to try to stamp communism into the section of Japan he would take was an obvious factor in Truman acting as quickly as he did. The Potsdam conference made it clear to Truman that the alliance with Russia was entirely out of necessity and that there was little friendship between the two nations. Russia would not pull out of the Eastern European territory they had taken when they swept towards Berlin, so the same was guaranteed in Japan.
The display of nuclear weaponry in Japan was an incredibly smart move because of this, as it showed Russia(although Russia was already somewhat aware of the Manhattan Project) what the US had in its arsenal and kept communism out of Japan, allowing the US to enter and occupy it for a few years. The hyper-capitalist society we see now in the far-east(S.Korea, Japan, China to an extent) is the result of Truman acting quickly enough to stop Russia from assisting and thus having rights to a section of Japan.
#122 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
Apologies for the wikipedia:
It was a pretty damn crucial battle. There are many historians who consider victory at Stalingrad the turning point in the war in Europe. I'll never, ever deny that the Russians lost more men, or that their equipment was either inadequate or not Russian made, but they managed to push the Germans back for the first time in Europe.
The reason the Germans couldn't get the gear they needed for winter warfare wasn't a coincide, scorched-earth, which the Russians had already proven to use well, was employed once more: www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p-91_Sanning.html. If lack of winter gear was what you think stopped them, then it's largely because of the only things the Russians prepared properly for.
Again, I'm arguing Russia from a military/tactical perspective. I'm talking strictly land retaken, German forces killed, etc. I'm not denying that the UK and (particularly) the US aid was what helped them do this, hell, I believe I've previously stated that the US aid contribution was crucial. I realize I probably misconstrued this when I said the war in Europe was mostly won by Russia, but I should clarify I'm not talking about aid or production, which is, obviously, central to total war.
On the note of poor Russian reaction, that's the point I'm trying to make. The history books characterize the early stages of Russia's war against the Axis as their entire campaign, when this clearly turned around during and after Stalingrad. A large amount of Soviet casualties in the early stage were simply hundreds of thousands surrendering to better organized German forces. This would change later on, with the German 6th being completely cut off from the rest of their forces and being forced to surrender. Losing 100,000 men to one Russian operation, for obvious reasons, was a large blow to the Germans.
On the note of Stalin being a complete maniac and making them hold the city only because it was his namesake, I'm not denying that. But I wouldn't at all call it a useless battle. Had the Germans won they would have spread further eastward into Russia, they were held at the Volga, and that is important no matter how you want to spin it.
#144 - bobsagget (07/22/2015) [-]
actually the plan was to fight at stalingrad and move south in to the caucuses because the oilfields there would keep german planes in the air and tanks on the move, the germans were bout plum out of oil and were using synthetic oil produced in 3 areas mainly, when they were destroyed or compromised the german war effort was severaly damaged. thats why operation barbarossa was intiated to begin with. the germans were muhammad ali and the russians were george foreman and that dope got roped, sure the germans lost more lives in russia than anywhere else, but the russians had the largest standing army as i mentioned. and russians lost by far the most lives of all and they were all killed by germans. Americans lost lives to japanese, italians, african brigades, germans, czech prisoners and others and still managed to prevent such devastation. you are arguing tactics, the russian tactic was throw wave after wave of bodies at them until their guns jam or they run out of ammo and then eventually you get close enough to shoot. the tactics that won the war in north africa, italy, france, and eastern germany, that was american tactics. far more combat efficient i'd say,
#145 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
Fuck me I deleted everything I wrote by accident.
Sorry for the briskness of this message, I'm going to make it a lot shorter than I intended to because I just lost 2000 characters worth.
The amount of countries the US lost lives to is irrelevant. The number of losses inflicted and sustained matter more. If the UK went to war against 10 random countries with tiny armies or one large one with an army a hundred times as big as any of the tiny ones, they'd have a harder time with the larger army. Number of countries isn't really important.
I think there's some confusion on what we're disputing. I'm disputing the claims that a.) Russian strategy was just meat-grinder until victory, b.) the invasion of Normandy was the key turning point in the war and that Russia would have fallen without it, and that c.) The only ally in the Pacific was the United States. Those are the claims I have been focusing on since the start, and while I realize tactics are heavily involved in point A, I'm not claiming that Russian strategy was in any way superior or more efficient than US military doctrine.
As far as Russian strategy goes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle
This strategy started full implementation in early 1943, and wasn't exactly just waves of troops. Uranus was a double envelopment that proved this kind of offensive worked with large armies, and the Red Army readjusted to this style of warfare in full after the offensive in November of 1942.
I realize the "russians throw waves after wave" is commonly thrown around, and tell you what, in the early stages of the war, it's probably at least partially true. Operation Barbarossa saw just under a million Axis casualties with the Soviets losing 4 million. After that, however, the situation changed. Line hugging, effective scorched earth, and finally deep battle held the Germans back, and that's important to remember. By saying they just threw men at the issue until it's fixed is simplifying an incredibly complex front of the war, and more importantly it's false if you apply it to the entire chronological scope of the conflict.
The issue with the history we are taught in school is that it can only go so deep, and so things get simplified and generalized. These two acts by definition must decide what is important, so by simplifying and generalizing we inherently inject our biases into what is taught. It's unavoidable. Most current teachers and a good number of historians grew up in the Cold War era, when the Ruskies and Commies were the devil incarnate. It's logical that our books on the military actions they took would glorify the best aspects of the US and UK doctrines while trodding on what Russia accomplished. That does not; however, make it true.
#146 - bobsagget (07/22/2015) [-]
if you take effective troop neutralization in to account, the american forces neutralized 12,000,000 german soldiers. as opposed to the 9,000,000 neutralized by the russians. it was the american/british invasion of italy that diverted a major assault on kurst. the germans never retreated or lost ground until the american forces were already within weeks of being present on the eastern front which would spell ruin for the axis powers. the russians didn't win by use of stratagem, they won by having enough soldiers to keep fighting until the germans couldn't continue.
#147 - klaes (07/22/2015) [-]
as far as the claim that the Germans never retreated or lost ground, here's a combination of the aforementioned Uranus and Little Saturn Operations run by the soviets. That's strategy, friend. And I think that's ground regained, too.
I'll be gone for a while and I don't know if we'll continue this discussion, but it's been fun. I apologize for my occasional rudeness.
#148 - bobsagget (07/23/2015) [-]
the russians didn't take prisoners on a regular basis, but a troop who can not fight is neutralized, meaning, the allies didn't just kill germans, they captured them too. that is also a factor you need to look at when determining who really took out germany's fighting force. the germans didn't lose german soil until well after the allies had won in north africa, italy, france, belgium, etc. so operation uranus doesn't conflict what I stated. and yes i meant kursk
#81 - kristovsky (07/22/2015) [-]
No one is saying the soviets did poorly, they won so obviously they didn't, but it is well known that Russian equipment (then and now) was built to be mass produced quickly, leading it to be sub par in quality to German equipment (the Germans had the best equipment of any power in the second world war, they just didn't have anywhere near enough). But, producing in mass was what won the Soviets the war, so it was to their benefit.
#93 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
oh, stupidity. Every nation in ww2 did the same thing, but german tactics were much better than allies. Germans attacked when russians rearmed their army.(russians learned a lot from winter war) btw, now russians make bet on quality more than quantity. There is no more big wars, only quick military conflicts or nuclear wasteland.
#78 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Did you grandfather live in the east or west after the war Im just curious
#68 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
says the Bosnian lol
#74 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
aww defending your boyfriend :3
|#47 - Pizza dough doesn't have milk or eggs in it. [+] (5 new replies)||07/22/2015 on Vegans||-2|
Join Subscribe 4chan
widar only allows comments from friends.